This one will make your head hurt

There's one advantage of Scotland being an independent country that isn't even up for debate - we'd have more seats in the European Parliament than we have as part of the UK. We currently have six, whereas independent countries of a similar size (Denmark, Finland and Slovakia) have thirteen. So surely having thirteen seats is better than having six? WRONG, say Scottish Labour in a leaflet I received the other day. See if you can make sense of this gibberish -

"Q. How does Labour make sure Scotland's voice is heard?

A. Smaller countries have much less clout but because we are part of the UK we have a voting block of 73 MEPs, and, along with 4 other countries out of 28, we make up half of all MEPs."

So Labour's explanation seems to be that MEPs representing English electoral areas (including UKIP and BNP members) are somehow representing Scotland as well, and not only that, but they're doing it as "a block". And it gets even better - the reference to "4 other countries" suggests that MEPs from France, Italy, Germany and Spain are also very kindly representing Scotland as "a block". This presumably includes French National Front MEPs. So by the end of one short sentence, we find that with just six MEPs Scotland in fact controls half of the entire European Parliament.

Crikey. No wonder Labour are so obsessed with the Union - we certainly won't see miracles like that after independence.

What's in a name?

I was intrigued to read David Maddox's recent post in the Steamie about the Party of European Socialists' apparent plan to change their name to the 'Alliance of Social Democrats'. Maddox explains in a matter-of-fact way that this amounts to a recognition of the fact that the parties that make up the group aren't actually socialists anymore. Curious that, because the swiftest of Google searches reveals that the true story is somewhat different. The PES are in fact extremely reluctant to change their name (hardly surprising given that so many of their constituent parties retain - at least nominally - a socialist identity), but feel compelled to do so to secure the full affiliation of Italy's principal centre-left party, which contains strong non-socialist elements.

Maddox also makes some other claims that I'm slightly dubious about. He implies that the SNP would be thrilled to join the PES if only Labour would let them in (really?) and he also suggests rather implausibly that the name change might encourage the European Greens to join the group. The article I read in fact suggested that the PES is considering ditching its current informal 'grand coalition' with the European People's Party to form a similar arrangement with the Greens. Is that where Maddox is getting his ideas from, I wonder? If so, he's misunderstanding what's really going on at a fairly basic level.

Can the left gain the upper hand in the European Parliament?

I mentioned the European elections in my previous post, and it was interesting to see William Hague on Newsnight confirm that it is still the Conservatives' intention to withdraw from the EPP-ED group after the June poll. Paxman seemed sceptical, but Hague left himself so little wiggle-room I tend to believe him. I suppose that should be my cue to go into a rant about the Tories drifting off to the lunatic fringe of hard right, Europhobic politics, but I'll leave that to others. What intrigues me is whether the loss of the EPP's British, Czech and presumably other associates will lead to the group surrendering its decade-long primacy in the European Parliament to the Socialists? I don't really know the answer - you'd need a labyrinthine spreadsheet of opinion polls and trends from 27 different countries to know how the groups are likely to fare across Europe as a whole, but it must at least be a possibility.